Mathis v. Wainwright, 22436.
| Decision Date | 05 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 22436.,22436. |
| Citation | 351 F.2d 489 |
| Parties | Robert T. MATHIS, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge, and CARSWELL, District Judge.
The judgment of the trial court denying the petition for habeas corpus from a state court conviction is affirmed.
Appellant's complaint that the trial court failed to invoke the rule of sequestration of witnesses does not raise a question that can be reached by federal habeas corpus, since such denial does not amount to a deprivation of appellant's constitutional rights, United States v. Brooks, 6 Cir., 303 F.2d 851.
The contention that appellant's constitutional rights were denied him by the knowing use by the State of perjured testimony has not been presented to the state court for relief. It can therefore not be considered here. So, too, was there a failure by the appellant to present to the state court his contention that there had been an illegal exclusion of Negroes from the jury.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wynn v. Smith
...(C.A.5), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 963, 88 S.Ct. 348, 19 L.Ed.2d 375 (1967); Hutson v. Zeigler, 362 F.2d 200 (C.A.5 1966); Mathis v. Wainright, 351 F.2d 489 (C.A.5 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1009, 86 S.Ct. 1960, 16 L.Ed.2d 1021 (1966); Cumbee v. Balkcom, 347 F.2d 375 (C.A.5 1965). It is rel......
-
Rock v. Zimmerman
...this claim; in any event, we find that this contention fails to state a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. See Mathis v. Wainwright, 351 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1009, 86 S.Ct. 1960, 16 L.Ed.2d 1021 5 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 92 S.Ct.......
- CIR v. Estate of Bosch
-
Smoot v. Woods
...See, e.g., Watson v. Camp, 848 F.2d 89 (7th Cir.1988).Bell v. Duckworth, 861 F.2d 169, 170 (7th Cir. 1988); see also Mathis v. Wainwright, 351 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1965). Similarly, there is no constitutional right to the presentation of proofs in any particular order. Geders v. United States......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...3771 (2006). 66. Edwards, 526 F.3d at 757-58 (quoting 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3771(a)(3)). 67. Id. at 758. 68. Id. (citing Mathis v. Wainwright, 351 F.2d 489, 489 (5th Cir. 1965)). 69. 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 70. Id. at 597. 71. 78 F.3d 524 (11th Cir. 1996), rev'd, 522 U.S. 136 (1997). 72. Id. at 530. ......